LATE CANAGA AROULAPPAN DE CANAGA MAIRE JOSEPH,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-2, PONDICHERRY, PONDICHERRY

Assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for AY 2013-14 on 13.05.2016 declaring the total income of Rs.13,69,919/- including capital gain of Rs.13,37,000/-. Assessee has sold property jointly with his wife Mrs. De Canaga Mary Regina. In reopening assessment proceeding there was no response from the appellant. Hence, ld.AO made an addition of Rs.17,11,463/- ex-parte vide order dated 04.12.2019 u/s. 144 r.w.s147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act’ in short). Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Assessee is in further appeal before us.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles of natural justice in true spirit. Ld.CIT(A) issued first two notices dated 25.01.2021 and 21.09.2021 during Covid-19 period and last notice after gap of almost two years on 21.07.2023. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.CIT(A), assessee will prosecute the appeal properly. Ld.CIT-DR relied upon order of ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by the parties before us. We find that ld.CIT(A) has not given effective opportunity of hearing to appellant. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) to hear the appeal afresh, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal as per law.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.